←back to thread

113 points curl-up | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jandrese ◴[] No.42742255[source]
Bottom line: 40% efficiency, which is better than I expected but the competition is batteries at 80+% efficiency. It's a hard sell, especially as continual improvements in battery storage will continue to eat away at their niche.

5,000 W/kg sounds great on paper compared to 150 W/kg for batteries and is even in the same ballpark as gasoline at 12,000 W/kg, but I think that's just the figure for the fuel. I don't think it includes storage, the solar panels, the burner, etc... The cost is an open ended question as well. Maybe this will pan out for aircraft?

replies(6): >>42742404 #>>42742536 #>>42742649 #>>42743119 #>>42744364 #>>42744374 #
VBprogrammer ◴[] No.42742404[source]
If that is 40% efficient as in 40% of the theoretical energy input comes out as electricity then it's quite incredible but I find that hard to believe. It would put it in the same range as diesel engines.
replies(2): >>42742471 #>>42745152 #
jandrese ◴[] No.42742471[source]
The 40% figure is supposed to be "wire-to-wire", but they do list that as the "target efficiency" which suggests it may be somewhat aspirational. It presumably doesn't include the energy needed to extract and refine the oil into whatever kind of burnable fuel you are using, nor the energy necessary to extract and then blend in the sodium additive.
replies(2): >>42742941 #>>42744398 #
kube-system ◴[] No.42742941{3}[source]
And at the bottom they seem to indicate they are still in the "proving feasibility" stage.

I read this all as: "this is a POC we have, and if we can get it to 40% efficiency than it might make sense (otherwise who cares, just use a conventional generator)"

replies(1): >>42743363 #
1. ◴[] No.42743363{4}[source]